Chapter Three:Law of the Sovereign

Resolved, N. C. D. 5. That the respective colonies
are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and
inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage, according
to the course of that law. [Declaration And Resolves Of The First Continental
Congress, October 14, 1774]

At this point, you've crossed the phrase "common law" several times in
this work. Also, I have mentioned the golden rule as the basis for common law.
This is too general a definition for this work, let us then explore what is
the common law.

Common law is a misleading term. The common law is not entirely the same
whenever or whever it is found. For instance, there is Anglo-Saxon Common law,
the Common Law of England, and American Common Law. Yet wherever it is in use,
the principles upon which it was founded remain inviolate forever. Though it
may take on added principles as times may require, the founding principles are
not abandoned and remain supreme. In this way, the common law provides a
stable form of justice that can adapt to new questions of law.

American Common Law, in general, dispenses justice according to the teachings of
Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures; it follows the procedures of the Common
Law of England; it holds that every freeman is the king of his own person and
property. The American brand of common law can be said to be the law in a
nation of kings for the kings themselves. American common law is a body of
general rules prescribing social conduct, enforced by courts of the body
sovereign, and characterized by the procedure of a trial by jury, and by the
doctrine of the supremacy of law. The common law is not a written code. It
is not for special groups or interests and is not to be identified with what is
called equity.

In America, common law is based under the principle of Royal Law; which is
known to many of us as the "Golden Rule". Royal Law or the Golden
Rule is found in the Bible. I do not profess myself to be any sort of
authority on religion, yet in the Bible you shall find Royal Law, eloquently
defined no less than in 3 instances:

If ye fulfill the royal law according to the
scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. [James 2:8]
[emphasis added]

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do ye also to them: This is the law... [Matthew 7:12]
[emphasis added]

"Master, which is the greatest commandment in the
law?" Jesus said to him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and
great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law... [Matthew
22:36-40] [emphasis added]

It is teachings such as this that convinced the sons of liberty to declare and
assume the powers of Earth to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God
entitled them. You and I are no less entitled.

Now, it really doesn't matter whether or not you believe in the Bible. What I
am telling you is that the colonists believed in it, and established this law
upon themselves. If you think I am wrong I challenge you to crack open the
books and see the truth for yourself.

Royal Law, Nature's Law, and common law, these are the Laws to which we as
sovereigns are bound. These are higher laws, above and beyond the scope of the
Constitution.

Our way of life is by the laws of nature, of Nature's
God...the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just
and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and
of government. [John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States]
[emphasis added]

Common law is not codified like the United States Code, or the Uniform
Commercial Code; those are laws for government and corporations, respectively.
The common law has no great volumes of books to wade through. It does not
consist of inflexible statutes, it is rather derived from natural principles
that are self-evident. American common law  having for it's foundation
Royal Law  is based upon the comprehensive principles of right and wrong,
morality, justice, truth, equality, reason, conscience, empathy, and common
sense. That is why Jefferson wrote: "State a moral case to a
ploughman & a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often
better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."

Artificial rules are for artificial entities,` i.e. governments and
corporations. In this country artificial rules do not apply to natural
sovereign persons, only Natural Law, or common law, so applies. As a
sovereign, as a people, and as a jury it is up to us judge what is fair,
equitable, and logical. That power is not delegated to the Supreme Court or
any government entity. That is our duty and our sacred obligatory.
This is what is meant by the term "self-government"; our right and
duty to effect justice for ourselves.

A distinction between American common law and all other forms of law is that
common law makes justice and morality mandatory. No other law, that I am aware
of, has this mandate.

Our government's only legitimate purpose is to serve the people; to act in their
stead in a capacity that they themselves cannot well serve. Such as"...to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." This is
Constitutional Law  that which applies to the government. Royal Law is
that law which applies to Man.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury...In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed...In suits at common law,
where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be
otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the
rules of the common law. [Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments]
[emphasis added]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[Ninth Amendment ]

The Government can and does establish courts, but it is restricted to establish
Justice as set forth by the Constitution, not as the Legislature or Courts
please. Our rights as sovereigns are not given up, nor limited by the
Constitution. Nay indeed, the Constitution explicitly sets
forth that the government is bound to observe those rights.

In modern times, we are horrified to witness our illegitimate justice system in
action. Take the following hypothetical case: A city government establishes a
quiet time ordinance. This ordinance states that no one shall yell or cause a
disturbance as to awake their neighbors between the hours of 10:00pm to 6:00am.
This is a reasonable regulation since the liberty of others is compromised if
not observed. However, Mr. Smith sees a boy in the street as a car speeds
onward at the youngster. Mr. Smith screams to the boy, "GET OUT OF THE
ROAD!" Mr. Jones, his neighbor, does not like Mr. Smith, so Mr. Jones files
a complaint. The District attorney's office is operated by a bunch of
dunderheads, and they feel that they have to prosecute to the letter of the
law. Since this is not an infamous crime, the D.A. has the court summon Mr.
Smith as a violator of civil code. At this point, Mr. Smith is given the
opportunity to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court, entrusting that
the judge will see that this is a travesty of Justice. However, the system of
law that we have been duped into is not just. The statute is that no one shall
yell, and the fact is he did, therefore, Mr. Smith is guilty.

Now, my questions to the reader are: What is Justice? What is the Law? And
who is the Criminal?

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as
the fact in controversy. [John Jay, 1789, 1st Chief Justice, of the Federalist
Papers]

The jury has the right to determine both the law and facts.
[Samuel Chase, 1796, Signer of the Declaration of Independence]

The
jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact. [Oliver
Wendell Holmes, 1902]

The law itself is on trial quite as much as the
cause which is to be decided. [Harlan F. Stone, 1941, 12th Chief Justice]

There is the existence of an unreviewable and irreversible power in the jury,
to acquit, in
disregard of the instructions on the law. [U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F2d
1113, pg.1132 (1972)] [emphasis added]

The juries have a power and a
legal right to pass upon both the law and the fact. [Sparf vs. U.S., 156 US 51,
pg 80, 15 Sup. Ct. 273, pg 285]

These quotes talk about the juries right to determine the law. Royal Law, the
highest of American laws says: "Therefore all things whatsoever
ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them: This is the law..."
All lower law must comply with this rule to be applicable. Obviously, the city
regulation
is not applicable in this case, regardless of all else. Yet, in
Mr. Smith's case he was not afforded a trial by jury. How do you suppose that
came to be?

The answer is two-fold, First, Mr. Smith, like most of us, does not understand
the court system, thus he allowed himself to be tried in an "administrative
procedures court" that has no lawful jurisdiction over him. Secondly, Mr.
Smith did not realize his rights even within this improper venue: he still
retained the privilege of a trial by jury, if he would have so insisted.

Our current "unlawful" justice system (see The de facto Judicial
System) is barbaric in comparison to what this country had in the 19th Century.
We've regressed. What law I ask is better than "do unto thy neighbor as
you would have him do unto you?" What could be more open, honest, and
fair? The answer is, in my humble opinion (as well as most theologians and the
colonists) that nothing can provide for a better society than a society that
treats each other with respect. If you would have your say in court, then you
must allow your neighbor to have his say. If you would be presumed innocent
until proven guilty, then you must allow the same for your neighbor. If you
would have freedom, then you must allow the freedom of your neighbor. This is
the law of the sovereign. Federal, state, and municipal statutes are of no
effect if we the People decide that a statute does not comply with our law.

The powers to act as the sovereign, in our behalf, were delegated by the
American People to the U.S. Government by the Constitution. Those powers are
expressly limited in the Constitution. That is why the U.S. Government cannot
lawfully abridge our rights (including sovereignty). You should realize, that
for the U.S. Government to claim that the People are not sovereign, would be
for the U.S. Government to claim that, the Constitution is invalid. If the
Constitution is invalid, the government thereby, is also invalidated. They can
risk hiding away our rights, but they cannot risk attacking our sovereignty in
the courts. It is the foundation on which they stand in the world community.

We have established that Constitutional Law applies to the government, and that
common law applies to the People. The chart on the next page demonstrates the
realms and functions of the different jurisdictions and bodies.

The jurisdiction(s) that the government will try to get you in will be on the
bottom somewhere. The only jurisdiction that you can be tried in if you learn
how NOT to waive your rights, and how to challenge a court's jurisdiction, is
in the middle common law jurisdiction. In the common law court/jurisdiction
the jury can judge the law, the fact, and deliver a verdict that is just; despite
all else. Only from this type of court is true american
justice served.

Our laws are layered and our institutions are balanced with extreme care. The
only thing that resembles anarchy is when the federal and state governments
under "color of law", and with "words of art", grasp for
more power and authority than they have been lawfully granted by the People
through their binding constitutions.

Realms and Functions Chart:

What you must realize is the law for the People is at a separate level than
the law for what a city government would be. The government (an artificial
body) determines the law for artificial bodies, like government and
corporations. The People determine what are the Laws of Nature's God, as best
they can, and apply those laws unto themselves.

That is the system the sons of liberty instituted, common law for the People,
Constitutional Law (in the form of statutes and promulgations) for the
government and corporations. In general, federal and state regulation only
applies to corporations and to government employees. Statutory laws only apply
to us if we consent, as individuals and juries. They do not apply to us if we
do not consent. Our consent, ignorance, and dependence is the means by which
laws are improperly applied.

As you look at the common law jurisdiction, you begin to understand just how the
Government was to be held in check. The full power of the sovereign begins to
be realized. This is one of the greatest revelations that you will ever have:
The government has no lawful power over the individual, only the
People's juries do. This alone is what is meant by the coined phrase "self-government."
Can you imagine a life of true liberty? The Founders gave us such a Nation,
but while we slept, others have labored diligently.

It needs to be set firmly in the reader's mind, before we close this
introduction to the common law, the reason that the common law is so vital to
Liberty. As stated before, it is unwritten. One can easily go back into the
old law books and discover how it was administered. You can read the tenets
upon which it was based, judicial commentaries upon it, etc. But you will not
find it categorized and catalogued by a legislature. This is its saving grace:
Being unwritten, lawyers and legislators cannot amend it; they cannot twist it;
they cannot pervert it; nor change it in anyway whatsoever. All they can do is
try to bury it from our minds, but at any time it is there for us to dig up
again. Once uncovered the jig is up for statute makers. The resurrection of
the common law is the resurrection of our authority over those we place in
office. Now you can see why they have labored so hard to bury the common law.
Fortunately for us, they couldn't bury it deep enough.

* * *

We have seen, heretofore, that this Nation was founded on principles. From
these we are able to correctly see the Chain of Authority where the People 
the body sovereign  are above both the Constitution, as well as the
government. We see that the sovereign is not to be restrained in his rights by
his own government, unless he is violating the rights of another sovereign.
The final arbitrator of the sovereign is two seperate juries of twelve
sovereigns each who have the authority and duty to know all the facts of a
case, and then render a verdict according to Royal Law. When the sovereign
will not submit to the will of the jury (Grand or petit) he places himself
outside the benefit of the law; viz, he becomes an outlaw.

Consider the coined phrase, "We are a nation of law, not of men." What
is our perception of this phrase and what does it really mean? It depends whom
you ask.

Aristocrat: Everyone must obey the government authority, it's the law. Unless
you're one of us.

Patriot: No man is above the Royal Law, Nature's Law, or common law, not the
President, the Supreme Court, nor anyone else. To disobey any so called "lesser
law" contrary to these higher laws is our Sacred Obligatory. We will not
be slaves, and we will not be masters. We will be brothers, or we will be
enemies; for us there is nothing else.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who,
in a moral crisis, maintain neutrality. [Dante Aleghieri]